I

Recently there was held the next conference of Constitutional Democratic deputies with local figures of this party.

They discussed, as was to be expected, the peculiarities of the present political moment. The liberal assessment of this moment is as follows:

"Attention has been drawn to the growing contradiction between the country's need for fundamental legislation and the impossibility of satisfying these needs under the present structure of legislative institutions and under the contemporary attitude of power toward popular representation."

The language is tangled like a ball of yarn that a kitten has long played with. Poor our liberals, they have nowhere to express their thoughts clearly!

But look more closely: the trouble lies not so much in the lack of a place to express themselves, but in the fact that the liberals have nothing to say. The contradiction grows not only between the country's needs and the hopelessness of the "present structure," etc., – but also between the country's needs and the helplessness of liberalism itself.

Why is it impossible to satisfy the country's needs, gentlemen liberals? The Constitutional Democrats' answer: the present structure of legislative institutions and the contemporary attitude of power toward popular representation are obstacles.

Conclusion: a different structure and a different attitude of power are necessary. What exactly, we shall see by examining in the following articles the "four positions" of the Constitutional Democratic conference.

But first we must pose the principal question: what explains the "present" "structure and attitude"? How can something different come about? The Cadets have not even thought about this! Their silence on this fundamental question reduces to calcified, Asiatic philistinism, the sort of thing that there were bad advisers, there could be good advisers…

Gentlemen Constitutional Democrats, is there no connection between the "present" situation and the interests of some class, for example, the class of large landowners? Or the wealthiest bourgeoisie? Is there not a complete correspondence between the "present" situation and the interests of certain classes? Is it not clear that to attempt to discuss the political moment without taking into account the relationships between all classes amounts to empty chatter?

Alas! The Cadets have nothing but chatter with which to cover up the "growing contradiction" between their politics and the country's needs.

II

Our liberals in general – and following them the liberal workers' politicians (liquidators) – love to speak and speak of Russia's "Europeanization." A tiny grain of truth serves here to cover up a big untruth.

It is undeniable that Russia, generally speaking, is becoming Europeanized, that is, being restructured after the image and likeness of Europe (and to "Europe" one must now assign, contrary to geography, Japan and China). But this Europeanization in general has been going on since Alexander II, if not from Peter the Great, and it goes on during periods of upsurge (1905) and during periods of reaction (1908–1911), and it goes on both in the police and among landowners of the Markov type, who "Europeanize" their methods of struggling against democracy.

The little word "Europeanization" turns out to be so general that it serves to confuse matters, to obscure the urgent questions of politics.

The liberals want the Europeanization of Russia. But the Council of United Nobility, through its law of November 9, 1906 (June 14, 1910), likewise strives for Europeanization.

The liberals want a European constitution. But the constitutions that have become established in different European countries were the result of long and difficult class struggle between feudalism and absolutism – on the one hand, the bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers – on the other. The written and unwritten constitutions with which our reactionaries are "shamed" by the liberals represent nothing other than a record of the outcomes of struggle, obtained after a series of hardly won victories of the new over the old and a series of defeats inflicted on the new by the old.

The liberals want the outcomes to appear among us without that complex of pluses and minuses that constitute the outcomes! The liberal program and liberal tactics reduce to this: let there develop in us a European system without that difficult struggle which created it in Europe!

It is understandable that our Kobylinskys meet the wishes and arguments of the liberals with contemptuous outbursts against "shopkeepers" and "muzhiks." – You want, gentlemen liberals, – say the Kobylinskys, – to write down on paper those victories which you have not yet achieved in life.

III

The Constitutional Democratic conference adopted four positions on the question of tactics. The first states:

"The tactic of unified activity on all fronts of the opposition, representing a necessary condition for the realization of the current business activity of the State Duma, does not, however, guarantee either the obtaining of a firm and permanent majority in the State Duma for opposition legislative projects, nor the actual realization of those legislative projects which the opposition might be able to pass through the State Duma with the help of the Duma center."

This gibberish, translated into Russian, means the following:

The liberals can form a majority in the State Duma only with the Octobrists. Such a majority is not permanent, and its decisions do not pass into life.

Correct. But the conclusion from this should be: to call these decisions "necessary," "current," and "business" (! ?) activity means deceiving ourselves and deceiving the people.

By voting down the right wing together with the Octobrists, we shall not take the position of legislation in the Fourth Duma, we shall not sow constitutional illusions – this is what the Cadets should have said to the people, if they wanted to be democrats in deed, not just in words.

The first "position" of the Constitutional Democratic conference strikes one with its illogicality. The adoption of legislative projects that are not actually realizable by a non-permanent and non-firm majority of the Fourth Duma is called "business" activity! ! The Cadets themselves have called this, and rightly so, a hundred times, vermicelli and tedium.

But the tactic of the Cadets, glaringly absurd from the point of view of logic, becomes comprehensible from the point of view of class interests. Let us recall what the Social Democrats said about the Third and Fourth Dumas, beginning with 1907. – There are two majorities in the Duma, they said: a right-Octobrist majority and an Octobrist-Cadet majority. Both stand on a counter-revolutionary footing (cf. "Enlightenment," 1913, No. 1, p. 13[50]).

The February 1913 conference of Cadets confirmed what we said in our official resolutions since 1907.

The "tactic of unified activity on all fronts of the opposition… with the help of the Duma center" is therefore necessary for the Cadets precisely because they stand, like the Octobrists, on counter-revolutionary footing. Given the internal kinship of the two, it is understandable that they tend toward joint "business" activity, despite its present hopelessness.

The Octobrists eternally whine in their press, curse the revolution, curse the government, curse the right wing, the State Council, – and in the Duma they limit themselves to wishes for reforms and follow the government.

The Cadets whine even more in their press, curse the revolution, curse the government, curse the right wing, the State Council, and the Octobrists, – and in the Duma they limit themselves to wishes for reforms and try to adapt their oppositionalism to suit the Octobrists.

IV

The second position of the Constitutional Democratic conference states:

"A substantial strengthening of the State Duma as a legislative and political factor can be achieved only by realizing three fundamental conditions: democratization of the electoral law (universal suffrage), fundamental reform of the State Council, and ministerial responsibility."

The essence of the tactic set forth here can be expressed in one word: reformism.

Historical science tells us that the distinction between reformist and non-reformist change of a given political system consists, generally speaking, in this: in the former – power remains in the hands of the former ruling class; in the latter – power passes from the hands of the former class to the hands of a new one. The Cadets do not understand the class foundation of historical transformations. This is the fundamental error of the Cadets from the point of view of theory.

From the point of view of practice, the distinction indicated in theory reduces to whether the particular changes while the general and fundamental remain unchanged, or whether the latter changes as well.

In different countries at different moments in history, the bourgeoisie has sometimes been reformist, sometimes it has been such that it did not limit itself to reformism. On the other hand, the working class, never acknowledging any capacity of reforms to introduce essential changes, does not, under certain conditions, refuse to put forward immediate demands in the form of reforms.

The matter reduces then to this: the Cadets consider it inviolable that power remain with the present ruling class, that is, with large landowners of feudal type. The Cadets continue to stand on the point of view of opposition in the genitive case, continue to hold the view that "Russia has, thank God, a constitution."

In other words, the "three fundamental conditions" of the Cadets are the conditions proposed by liberal bourgeoisie for the amicable division of economic and political privileges between feudal landownership and capital.

The Octobrists stand on the same point of view ("reconciliation of power with the country" – in the language of neither quite an Octobrist nor quite a Cadet, Maklakov), moreover the Octobrists put forward more "pleasing" conditions for landownership in the division.

The greater pleasingness of the Octobrists has gone bankrupt. What grounds are there to expect a different result from the lesser pleasingness of the Cadets? From the point of view of reformism, the Octobrists are far more consistent, for whoever takes up this point of view must reckon with the acceptability of reforms, and the Octobrist "reforms" are far more "acceptable."

The conclusion is one: the contradiction grows between liberal reformism and the country's needs.

V

The third position of the Constitutional Democratic conference states:

"The preparation of these conditions must be made the fundamental task of the tactic of the Constitutional Democrats, moreover the current legislative activity, jointly with other opposition groups and with the center, must be used to the extent it proves feasible, but must not come into contradiction with the realization of these fundamental tasks" ("Rech'" No. 34, February 4).

The previous "position" was a concession to the left Cadets or, more precisely, was bait for democracy: support us Cadets because we are "democrats," we are for universal suffrage!

After nodding to the left – a serious turn to the right: the 3rd position, translated from gibberish into Russian, states: with the Progressists and Octobrists, we Cadets recognize joint current legislative activity!

But after all, this "current" legislation produces unrealizable legislative projects, as acknowledged in position 1? The Cadets have a loophole: "to the extent it proves feasible." That is, more directly speaking, we shall busy ourselves with vermicelli, but let the responsibility for this fall on the Octobrists! Our Cadets are jokers, truly…

Furthermore. Neither the Progressists nor the Octobrists, standing more consistently than the Cadets on the reformist point of view, agree to such "excessively" liberal demands as universal suffrage, fundamental reform of the State Council, and so on. How then can Cadets continuing to lay claim to democratism proclaim joint current legislative activity with these avowed opponents of democracy?

And here too the Cadets have a loophole: we Cadets are occupied with the preparation of universal suffrage, preparation through joint activity with the Octobrists, which "must not come into contradiction with the realization" of universal suffrage!

A simple loophole: we declare Rodziyanko's speech "constitutional," we vote (not by mistake, as the Social Democrats do, but out of conviction) for the Octobrist formula for transition on the basis of the ministerial declaration, because all this does not contradict the "preparation" of universal suffrage!

Here one cannot say that the Cadets are jokers. Here one would have to use a different word…

In all European countries, the counter-revolutionary, turned-away-from-democracy liberal bourgeoisie continues to assure that it is occupied with the preparation (jointly with national-liberals – in Prussia, jointly with all progressists – in France) of "fundamental" democratic reforms.

The bourgeoisie that has definitively taken the reformist path is a rotten bourgeoisie, impotent in its liberalism, hopeless in matters of democratic change, hostile to workers, gone to the right from the people.

VI

The last, fourth, position of the Constitutional Democratic conference states:

"The conference recognizes it timely, alongside the putting forward of the mentioned three slogans, to raise the question of the application of more active tactical measures in parliamentary struggle."

Only parliamentary? and only to raise the question?

What, precisely, is meant by: "more active tactical measures in parliamentary struggle," – Allah alone knows. The Cadet conference seemed to formulate its positions intentionally in the most unintelligible language.

In speaking of more active measures, the Cadets obviously want to show that they are moving left. But this is precisely only a show, because nothing definite can be read from it.

What "measures" of parliamentary struggle can, generally speaking, be named more active?

Not voting for Octobrist and Progressist formulas for transition.

Not making speeches about "reconciliation of power with the country."

Never remaining silent when the right-Octobrist majority carries through anti-democratic measures.

Not agreeing to the closing and curtailment of general, fundamental debates.

We advise everyone and anyone who comes into contact with Cadets never to forget to ask them: did they "raise" the question of more active measures? how did they decide this question if they gathered to raise it? how do they apply in practice "more active measures"?

The country is moving left. A new democracy is awakening to life. The show of a slight leftward movement by the Cadets has a perfectly definite political significance: to deceive this new democracy, to lead it after themselves, to represent themselves as its representatives.

The urgent task of democracy is to prevent this deception. Whoever has not drawn from the harsh lessons of the past the conclusion that even partial leadership of democratic elements by the Cadets inevitably provokes waverings, betrayals, inglorious defeats without struggle, – has learned nothing. Such a person must be regarded as an enemy of democracy.

VII

Taken in general and as a whole, the Cadet conference represents an interesting document on the political life of our "center." Usually, the press pays little attention to such documents, to the exact and formal resolutions of organized parties. There is a dislike for "resolutions." Interviews and gossip are preferred.

But a serious approach to politics requires the most careful analysis of party resolutions, and Marxists will do everything in their power for such analysis.

We called the Cadets the "center." It is customary to call the Octobrists this, who stand between the right wing and the opposition.

However – both from the point of view of the class foundations of political parties and from the point of view of the essence of contemporary politics in general – one cannot limit oneself to the Duma in analyzing parties, one cannot consider only the Octobrists the "center."

Look at the class foundations of our parties: the right wing and the Nationalists are, in general, serf-owning landowners. They stand for the preservation and "intensification" of the present regime.

With the Octobrists, Progressists, and Cadets we see a landowner, certainly of a more bourgeois type, and then also a mass of large bourgeoisie. All these parties want reforms. All of them form the true center between serf-owning landowners and democracy (peasant and workers').

The bourgeoisie fears democracy more than it fears reaction; this applies both to the Progressists and to the Cadets. The oppositionalism of the two latter parties must, of course, be taken into account in the practical tasks of everyday politics, but this oppositionalism must not obscure from us the class kinship of these parties with the Octobrists.

Serf-owning landowners hold sway both individually and in alliance with the upper strata of the bourgeoisie. The serf-owners are against reforms. The bourgeoisie, generally speaking, is for reforms, limiting itself to a reformist position, which cannot be said of either peasant or – especially – workers' democracy.

The Cadet conference clearly shows us the reformism of the Cadets as their exclusive tactic. Most important of all is to make clear to ourselves the connection of this tactic with the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the inadequacy of this tactic, its "growing contradiction" with the country's needs. Most important of all is to make clear the fundamental kinship of the Constitutional Democrats with the Octobrists and the absolute impossibility of any successes of democracy under the leadership of the Cadets.

VIII

My little article was already finished when I received No. 30 of the newspaper "Voice of Moscow" with an editorial article devoted to the Cadet conference, "What Next?"

This article, in connection with Duma voting of February 6 (adoption of the transition formula on the basis of Kassov's explanations){179}, is of such importance and sheds such bright light on the question of the Cadets' relationship to the Octobrists, that it becomes absolutely necessary to speak about them.

The official organ of the Octobrists, "Voice of Moscow," depicts the Cadet conference (for some reason it calls it a conference), as a victory of the left Cadets headed by Milyukov over the right Cadets.

"Legislative activity, – thus does the 'Voice of Moscow' set forth the resolution of the Cadets, – can be used only insofar as it does not contradict these fundamental tasks" (that is, universal suffrage, reform of the State Council, and ministerial responsibility).

"Speaking more plainly, the adoption of such a formula is equivalent to refusal from all legislative work within the limits of real feasibility, and Cadet opposition henceforth takes on the openly irresponsible character."

The "Voice of Moscow" draws from this the conclusion that it remains only to dissolve the Duma, because the Octobrists will never take such an "uncompromising" (don't joke!) position as the Cadets, there is no majority in the Duma, "complete hopelessness"…

Here is how history is written!

Here is where it is remarkably revealed – the deepest kinship of the Constitutional Democrats with the Octobrists and the true character of their "quarrels": when doves fall out…

On February 6 in Moscow the official organ of the Octobrists declares, as we have seen, the complete destruction of the Octobrist-Cadet bloc after the Cadet conference held before February 4 (on February 4 "Rech'" published about the conference).

On the same February 6 in St. Petersburg, in the Fourth State Duma, the Octobrists and Cadets together adopt by 173 votes against 153 an Octobrist-Cadet formula for transition to Kassov's explanations – a formula that was then rejected on a recheck vote by accident! !

Is it not nice?

Before us is a direct classical specimen of how the Octobrists and Cadets conduct their political "little dealings." They are not in any "bloc," God forbid! But they distribute roles among themselves for hoodwinking the public in such a "clever" way that no formal bloc would give them such "conveniences." The Cadets see that the country is moving left, that a new democracy is being born, and therefore they play at leftism, putting into circulation, through their conference, several absolutely meaningless, completely empty-headed, but seemingly left-wing phrases. The Octobrists support in the public this mood or impression that the Constitutional Democrats have moved left, support it by officially, in the editorial of the "Voice of Moscow," declaring the position of the Constitutional Democrats uncompromising, declaring the formation of a majority in the Duma by means of joining the Octobrists with the Constitutional Democrats impossible, attacking the Constitutional Democrats for leftism, making noise about the dissolution of the Duma, and so on and so forth.

And in reality – under cover of this noise they haggle with the Constitutional Democrats and at the very moment of their sharpest blow against the leftism of the Constitutional Democrats – they haggle with them over a joint formula! !

"And the wolves are fed, and the sheep are whole." And democracy is led by the nose, deceived, lured into the Cadet herd (the Cadets are after all such leftists… look how the Octobrists curse them for leftism!), and the Octobrist-Cadet bloc in the Black Duma is preserved, strengthened, developed.

One wants to exclaim: oh, heavens! When will Russian democracy understand this simple mechanism of liberal Cadet hoodwinking? And after all, in all European countries liberal bourgeois politicians conduct, one way or another, precisely this very game; before the people, for elections, in official appearances they shout and swear that they are democrats, radicals (German "freethinkers," Lloyd George and Co. in England), even socialists (radical-socialists in France). And in reality, in their actual politics, they go together with absolutely anti-democratic governments and parties, with Octobrists of different shades and different nationalities.

How old is this history and how endlessly often the Cadets repeat it!

IX

The "Voice of Moscow" assures that before the elections the Constitutional Democrats

"conducted heated polemics with the left, proving the necessity of legislative work within the limits of real conditions. This gave grounds for hoping for the possibility of agreement of the Duma center with the opposition. But after the elections a substantial change occurred in the views of the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party. The resolution proposed by Milyukov and adopted by the conference on the question of Duma tactics fundamentally diverges from everything that was said during the elections, apparently to attract to their side the votes of large city bourgeoisie. The latter would hardly have agreed to support the Cadets on the platform put forward by the conference."

Here is a specimen of judgments where one does not know what to marvel at: naive cunning or naive ignorance.

There is no change in the views of the Constitutional Democrats. They have always been and remain a liberal party deceiving democracy and leading it after themselves. And in the 1912 elections the Cadets presented before large bourgeoisie their "true" face, their "solidarity" of businessmen, their "sobriety" as servants of the capitalist class. And before the democratically-minded voter those same Constitutional Democrats at that very same time were making a great show, saying that they are democrats and that their tactic in the Duma differs in nothing essential from the Social Democratic tactic.

These two sides of Cadet politics are a necessary "part of the costume" of every liberal party in all civilized countries. Of course, individual party members not infrequently choose as their specialty, some – to play at democratism, others – to sober up the "carried away" and conduct "serious" bourgeois politics. But after all this happens in all countries. For example, the well-known liberal charlatan in England, Lloyd George, represents himself in speeches before the people directly as a revolutionary and barely a non-socialist, and in reality this minister in politics follows his leader, Asquith, who will not yield to the conservative in anything.

If the article of the "Voice of Moscow" depicts Mr. Milyukov as the representative of the left Cadets, this only raises a smile. Mr. Milyukov in reality is the representative of official Cadet diplomacy, reconciling the non-democratic essence of the party with democratic phrases.

The "Voice of Moscow" writes:

"This new 'post-election' position of Mr. Milyukov was approved by the conference far from unanimously. A considerable part of its members insisted on the tactic of agreement with the Duma center with the aim of passing individual projects and cultural reforms. Supporters of this point of view argued that in the discussion of various legislative projects the faction must make compromises, trying to pass them in the liberal spirit and by no means making them unacceptable." There follows an outburst against the "famous Cadet discipline" and "unquestioning submission" of the Constitutional Democrats to the "autocratic will" of Mr. Milyukov.

An obvious game. Stitched with white thread. The Octobrists "tease" the right Cadets, trying to depict them as defeated and to incite them to more decisive struggle with left Cadets. But from this game of the Octobrists (which would be impossible if the Constitutional Democrats and Octobrists were not members of one family) the indisputable fact of the difference in shades between the left and right Cadets does not disappear, between the Lloyd Georges and Asquiths of our liberalism.

Look at "Russian Rumor." This organ of the Progressists, the organ of preaching compromise between the Octobrists and Constitutional Democrats, is picking up more and more official members of the Cadet party. Not at once, but gradually, following the "Landmark" leader Struve, there came there also Mansyrev, and Maklakov, and Obolenksy, and Gredeskul, and Aleksandrov. That such a public tended toward greater rapprochement with the Octobrists is indisputable. It could not be otherwise. But it is equally indisputable that Milyukov reconciles them with the "left Cadets" on a platform with a democratic label and with Octobrist substance.

X

The Duma formulas for transition of different parties on the basis of Kassov's explanations are of great interest. They give us exact, officially adopted by deputies of different parties material for political analysis. It is precisely analysis that is usually most lacking to this material. It gets lost in notes of the daily press or in heaps of Duma stenographic reports. And it is well worth stopping to clarify the true nature of different parties.

The editorial article of "Rech'" the day after adoption of the formula of no confidence declares: "Thus Russian society received from the State Duma that which it had the right to expect" (No. 37, February 7). It seems to turn out that "society" need only know: does the Duma trust Mr. Kassov or not, nothing else!

This is incorrect. The people and democracy must know the motives of no confidence in order to understand the causes of the phenomenon recognized as abnormal in politics, and in order to be able to find the way to the normal. Unification on the sole word "we have no confidence" of Constitutional Democrats, Octobrists, and Social Democrats gives too little on these most serious questions. Here is the transition formula of the Octobrists:

"The State Duma… considers: 1) any involvement of secondary school students in political struggle as pernicious to the spiritual development of young Russian forces and harmful to the normal course of public life; 2) the necessity, in cases of timely awareness by the authorities of undesirable phenomena in secondary schools, of preventive measures rather than waiting until phenomena take on an abnormal character; 3) expressly speaks against the application to students of those police measures which took place on 10.XII.1912 without the knowledge of the educational authorities, instead of natural pedagogical influence; 4) recognizes as anti-pedagogical the slowness with which the fate of students expelled from educational institutions is decided, and, expecting the immediate resolution of this case in a sense favorable to students, – transitions to current business."

What are the political ideas of this votum?

Politics in school is harmful. Students are to blame. But they should be punished by teachers, not by police. We are dissatisfied with the government for lack of "good will" and for slowness.

These are anti-democratic ideas. This is liberal opposition: let the system of the old power remain, but it must be applied more gently. Beat, but in measure and without publicity.

Look at the transition formula of the Progressists:

"…The Duma finds: 1) the ministry of popular enlightenment, informed of what happened in secondary schools in St. Petersburg recently, displayed indifference to its duties and did not protect the secondary school from the incursion of police; 2) the methods employed by the police, which were accepted without protest from the ministry of popular enlightenment and consisted of searches of schools, seizure and holding of children in the police station under arrest, in inadmissible methods of investigation, cannot in any way be justified, the more so as the matter concerned not the protection of state security but the restoration of order in secondary schools; 3) the entire system of measures of the ministry of popular enlightenment directed at estranging the school from the family, by soulless formalism oppressing the moral and intellectual development of the young generation, creates conditions favorable for the emergence of phenomena abnormal in school life. Considering the explanations of the minister of popular enlightenment unsatisfactory, the Duma transitions to current business."

This formula was submitted on January 30, and the Progressists then declared that they would vote for the Octobrists if they add a no-confidence vote. We saw the results of this haggling above.

On what basis could the haggling proceed? On the basis of agreement in essentials.

The Progressists too consider politics in school abnormal, too demand "restoration of order" (serf-owning order). They too have opposition in the genitive case, opposition not to the system of the old power but to its application – "indifferent, soulless," and so on. Pirogov in the 1860s agrees that beating is necessary but demanded that they beat without indifference, not soullessly. The Progressists are not against the present social elements "restoring order," but it is advised that they do so "more sympathetically." What progress we have made over half a century!

The transition formula of the Cadets:

"Having heard the explanations of the minister of popular enlightenment and recognizing: 1) that in them there takes place a complete confusion of the pedagogical point of view with the police point of view; 2) that these explanations represent a complete negation of those normal foundations on which friendly relations of cooperation between school and family can be established; 3) that the policy of the ministry, evoking deep dissatisfaction among students and legitimate irritation in society, itself contributes to the formation of that atmosphere which favors the early involvement of student youth in political affairs and thus itself creates the conditions the emergence of which it should have prevented; 4) that treatment of students as state criminals maims life of the most talented of the rising generation, tears from its ranks numerous victims and constitutes a threat to the future of Russia, – the Duma recognizes the explanations of the minister unsatisfactory and transitions to current business."

In a much softer and phrase-wrapped form here too there is condemned the "early" involvement in politics. This is an anti-democratic point of view. Both Octobrists and Cadets condemn police measures only because they demand prevention instead of them. The system should not disperse assemblies but prevent them. It is clear that the system itself would only be embellished by such a reform, but would not change. We are dissatisfied with the policy of the ministry, – say the Constitutional Democrats, – and it turns out from them, just like from the Octobrists, that it is possible to wish change in this policy without something far more profound.

Constitutional Democrats express themselves against the government far more sharply than the Octobrists, and politically undeveloped elements, seeing this sharpness of words, overlook the complete identity of the liberal, anti-democratic approach to the question by Constitutional Democrats and Octobrists.

The Duma ought to seriously teach the people politics. Whoever learns politics from the Cadets corrupts rather than develops their consciousness.

That Octobrists, Progressists, and Cadets haggled and reached an agreement on a joint formula is not a coincidence but the result of their ideological and political solidarity in essentials. There is nothing more petty than Cadet politics: for the sake of recognition of explanations as unsatisfactory to agree to direct condemnation of politics in schools. But the Cadets agreed to this because they themselves condemn "early" involvement.

The transition formula of the Labor Group:

"Taking into account: 1) that crude violence committed on 9.XII.1912 against secondary school students, which shocked society by the shameful involvement of the secret police in pedagogical oversight of secondary school students, met in the explanation of the minister of popular enlightenment Mr. Kassov with only complete approval and spiteful mockery of public opinion; 2) that the system of investigation and surveillance, being the result of the entire policy of the united ministry and in particular of the minister of popular enlightenment Kassov, leads to the final ruin and threatens heavy upheavals in the future for the rising generation, – the State Duma demands: the immediate return of all expelled on 9.XII and, recognizing the explanations of the minister of popular enlightenment Kassov unsatisfactory, – his immediate resignation and transitions to current business."

This formula, strictly speaking, is a sharply liberal formula, but there is lacking in it what a democrat, as distinct from a liberal, ought to say. A liberal can recognize as shameful the involvement of the secret police in pedagogical oversight, but a democrat should say (and should teach the people) that no kind of "oversight" has the right to encroach on the free organization of circles and discussions about politics. A liberal can condemn "the entire policy of the united ministry," but a democrat in Russia should explain that there are certain general conditions by virtue of which any other ministry would be forced to conduct essentially the same policy.

The democratism of the Labor Group formula shows itself only in its tone, in the mood of its authors. A mood is a political symptom, no doubt. But from a transition formula it is not out of place to demand thought-through ideas, not merely "uplifting" mood.

The transition formula of the Social Democrats:

"Having heard the explanations of the minister of popular enlightenment and discerning in them: 1) the determination to struggle with the natural and welcome aspiration of student youth to expand their intellectual horizon through self-education and to fraternal association; 2) justification of the system of bureaucratic formalism, espionage, and police investigation being implanted in higher, secondary, and lower schools, mentally and morally maiming youth, mercilessly suppressing all glimmers of independent thought and independence of character and engendering an epidemic of suicides among students, – the State Duma recognizes these explanations unsatisfactory. Recognizing at the same time that 1) the domination of the police point of view in the matter of popular enlightenment is inseparably connected with the domination of the secret police over all Russian life, the suppression of all forms of organized initiative by citizens and their lack of rights and that 2) only the fundamental transformation of the state system and the system of state administration is capable of freeing citizens from police bonds, of freeing school from them too, – the State Duma transitions to current business."

Hardly can one recognize even this formula as flawless. One cannot but wish it a more popular and more thorough exposition, one cannot but regret that the legitimacy of engaging in politics is not indicated, and so on and so forth.

But our critique of all the formulas is not at all directed at the particulars of editing but exclusively at